linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1226082624.11596.28.camel@brick>
Date:	Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:30:24 -0800
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	dhowells@...hat.com, nico@....org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()

On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 10:21 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:00:41 -0500
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> > > It's one of those things I hope I never need to know about, but perhaps
> > > we do somewhere have static storage in an inline.  Wouldn't surprise
> > > me, and I bet that if we do, it's a bug.
> > 
> > Tracepoints actually use that.
> 
> Referring to include/linux/tracepoint.h:DEFINE_TRACE()?
> 
> It does look a bit fragile.  Does every .c file which included
> include/trace/block.h get a copy of __tracepoint_block_rq_issue,
> whether or not it used that tracepoint? Hopefully not.
> 
> > It could be changed so they use :
> > 
> > DECLARE_TRACE() (in include/trace/group.h)
> > DEFINE_TRACE()  (in the appropriate kernel c file)
> > trace_somename(); (in the code)
> > 
> > instead. That would actually make more sense and remove the need for
> > multiple declarations when the same tracepoint name is used in many
> > spots (this is a problem kmemtrace has, it generates a lot of tracepoint
> > declarations).

Could this scheme also help with the thousands of sparse warnings that
kmemtrace produces because of the current arrangement, all of the form:

include/linux/kmemtrace.h:33:2: warning: Initializer entry defined twice
include/linux/kmemtrace.h:33:2:   also defined here

As you could have unique names for the tracepoints now, rather than the
'unique' static storage?  Or am I off-base here?

Harvey



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/